Laura Watt: Oyster farm was intended to stay

IN THEIR Nov. 6 Marin Voice, "Why oyster company must go," Ron Sundergill and Sara Barth assert that the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. "prevents the estero from receiving the complete protection that Congress intended it to receive."

This allegation is a serious distortion both of the ecological impacts on the estero, and of congressional intent behind designating the area as "potential wilderness" back in 1976.

Oysters have been farmed in Drakes Estero for decades, and yet the estero remains described by the Coastal Commission as "relatively pristine." A report published by the National Park Service on Sept. 18 concludes that more analysis would be needed to determine whether the oyster operations are affecting seal distribution and productivity, sedimentation, eelgrass habitat, or fish species abundance, diversity, or richness in any way.

More disturbing are the authors' allegations that the presence of the oyster farm is undermining wilderness protection in Point Reyes.

When Congress discussed wilderness designation in 1976, numerous letters from organizations such as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Council, Marin Conservation League, and Marin County Planning Commission specified their agreement with allowing the oyster operations to continue within the estero despite its "potential wilderness" designation.

Assemblyman Michael Wornum put it simply: "I believe everyone concerned supports the continued operation of oyster farming in Drakes Estero as a non-conforming use." And one of the bill's co-sponsors, Sen. John Tunney, stated in his testimony that "Established private rights of landowners and leaseholders will continue to be respected and protected. The existing agricultural and aquacultural uses can continue."

Nowhere in the legislative history does anyone object to the oyster farm, nor give any indication that wilderness designation would be hindered by its continued presence. There is no need for the Park Service to "downgrade its protective status," as Sundergill and Barth warn; it could simply remain designated as potential wilderness indefinitely.

The 1976 legislation was actually the first use of the concept of "potential wilderness" by Congress. The term is not described in the 1964 Wilderness Act itself, and no other agency uses it. Essentially, "potential wilderness" is a placeholder, allowing areas with non-conforming uses to be added to wilderness if and when conditions change, without having to pass new legislation, and preventing new uses or developments from occurring. In this case, it seems directed at keeping recreational motorcraft out of Drakes Bay.

The Park Service's decision to not renew the existing oyster lease in 2012 is simply that: an administrative decision. It is not required by the Wilderness Act or the 1976 wilderness designation, nor is it compelled by any scientific findings of damage. Further, it is a decision made in a vacuum, without considering the impacts this closure could have on the sustainability of the working agricultural landscape of West Marin, both within the park boundaries and beyond.

In 1999, the Park Service held meetings to generate input on an update of its 1980 General Management Plan, long out of date. But since then, not even a draft plan has been published - and a General Management Plan is exactly what is needed here, a view of all the valuable resources in the park and how best to maximize their protection.

Instead, the Park Service has made a series of piecemeal decisions that have negatively impacted the viability of the working landscape in the park.

Its decision to not renew the oyster farm's permit would represent another loss to this vibrant area's sustainable agriculture and distinctive character.

Laura Watt is an associate professor of environmental studies and planning at Sonoma State University, specializing in environmental policy.